Amtrak funding

[Anonymous]

Well if my choices are to pay an unspecified amount of money to Amtrak to permit them to persue railroading in the way they would like OR to let it die then I have to say 'let it die.' If you want to pay an unspecified amount of money to Amtrak, then I invite you to go ahead. I think you should spend your money on whatever you think is best. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Wkhey(?)

I think if we start doing things like they do in Europe we will soon have a lower standard of living like they do in Europe. No thanks.

But, in a way I would like to propose a compromise system for you to consider . . .
Since you say we should subsidize Amtrak like they do in Europe and that most European countries are the size of a state here in the US then lets use the 10th ammendment and reorganize Amtrak so they deal with the states instead of the federal government. In my opinion, making Amtrak accountable to the states will raise their level of service. It will also settle the question of how much money should be pumped into the NEC vs the other portions of Amtrak. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Terry,

I don't look at the US military as a highway subsidy. If you can rethink your argument a little I would like to hear what you have to say.

Funny thing about that is that I am paying those taxes too. So it doesn't wash anyway.

Some of y'all need to discard your envy of the best highway system in the world and give a real look at the problems Amtrak face. Later - Ed

[mnwestern]

Amen! Cut the subsidizes for airlines and truckers and listen to the howls!

[mnwestern]

My Gosh, just when I thought there was no sanity to this issue after listening to Ed and Alexander. Why is there such anxiety over subsidizing Amtrak? We subsidize highways, streets, airports, lock and dams on rivers for barges, etc. All other forms of transportation are considered beneficial to the common public, much like our support for clean water supplies, sewer systems, electricity and natural gas for home heating (these too are subsidized in their own way, especially in the case of municipal systems). But, boy, talk about giving money to Amtrak and you would think Lenin was taking over Washington, D.C. I don't see the furor over heavily subsidized commuter and light rail systems. Oh, that's right, Ed and Alexander probably use those so those subsidies are fine, I guess.

[mnwestern]

Boys,
I agree, then. User pays all. Get ready to put your gas hog SUVs on the market, because gas should cost $4 to $5 per gallon like it does in the rest of the world where it isn't subsidized like it is here. (Oh, yes, we do subsidize it. Why do you think we spend billions each year maintaining half our military in the Persian Gulf — because we like Arabs? Unlikely!)
Get real!

[mnwestern]

Alexander and Ed:
Have you driven on our highways and streets lately? Do you still think it works? Of course JB Hunt and Greyhound like the system, we, the taxpayers and auto drivers, build them a nice infrastructure that their big rigs can then go out an pound to death, knowing that we'll just rebuild them.
As for the ticket buyer paying more — great idea, as long as highway and airport users also pick up the full cost of their infrastructure. Man, would JB, Greyhound and Joe Average Airline Passenger bark at that.
Do you realize that when trucks come of the highway and onto our city streets, they are likely driving on roads they didn't contribute a dime to. Are you two homeowners or businessmen? Have you ever had your street and utilities rebuilt out in front of you? Who paid? You did, and the rest of the city residents. Nowhere in the financial arrangements was there a line item saying "contribution from trucking and busing industry."
Get real!

[Anonymous]

Oh, Ed. Why? Because it's too reasonable of an idea to survive the Hill? Ah, well,

I have stated before, however, this predicition: a certain 4 letter carrier will within the next 5 years "re acquire" the EB & SW Chief, and maybe even the CZ. Why?

1.) Public Relations. Whether for Operation Lifesaver safety issues, or for keeping the public aware of the important role they play, having thousands of people take "inspection tours" of the ROW regularly is a good thing.

2.) Customer relations. It's a great advertisement of how well the ROW is built, how fast the sshedules are, how routing is handled, etc... to get customers on a regualrly scheduled train operating at crack speeds. Compare it to taking your customer and giving him the experience of what his 40' container would get on a Z train.

3.) Government relations. By running passenger trains you become intergrated into society, and thus more relevant to the government. This equates less red tape, and possibly govenrment construction or at least cooperation on capacity projects.

4.) Operational control. By bringing the trains into the fold, their maintenance, dispatching, etc.. are all contained "in house", meaning they will no longer delay the freights.

5.) Express traffic. Do not be surprised if that carrier then becomes more involved in handling express traffic in conjunction with these trains.

Well. How is that as food for thought?

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

At first glance your idea seems to be a resonable transition from public to private operation. Let Amtrak operate two companies. The NEC company has to earn its keep. The national company gets the federal government to pay for all new routes, in hopes that someday it might repay some massive loans. I don't think you could get Congress behind that.

I also don't think Congress has the desire to reduce taxes (on the real railroads) even if it would provide a service to the travelers.

I think that having the train operator the same company that owns the track is essential to finding the right way. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Ed:

There is another way of going about this entirely. One could somehow say, for such and such routes or cities, we, (the gov... pref. state but prob fed.)

Then perhaps we could provide a financial incentive- (tax breaks? A return of the RR fuel tax to RR infrastructure projects?) for the freight RRs to run these trains.

This would get the entire train ops into the hands of the same company which owns the track and controls it.

What do you think? Needs work of course, but it's just a seed right now....

[Anonymous]

Well, theoretically the bonding would be paid off by revenue from the trains, when they reach a frequency and user level that can support it, ie 15 or 30 years. After all, that is the intent with a bond, as they are generally longer term, whereas stocks are shorter term and must perform quickly or be downrated very fast.

[Modelcar]

Yes....get to work on what is not doing the job in the passenger system now...Mr. Gunn knows how to do that. Fund the system in an appropriate manner, and that will allow the repair facility in Indianapolis to rebuild the equipment that is needed to run the routes properly. Much equipment is there waiting to be repaired, some pieces for several years. Routes are being "robbed" of it's equipment to keep others running. Of course that's not a way to run an effecient system, never can be. Improve it into a decent transportation system or STOP everything. It's been running in a non acceptable manner for too long now. No wonder it has a bad perception and some speak out against it. It hasn't been able to do any better with the funding it's lived with all these years.

QM

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

Yes I think Amtrak would have to abandon all but a small portion of its commuter rail to make a profit alone. In the spring, summer and fall, they may be able to operate trains from one major city to another but this would be treated similar to a charter flight or bus. They may even get into the 'land cruise' buisness as they have been accused. But scheduled interstate passenger service would cease to exist in the short run.

But from this seed, Amtrak could do market research and find the routes which could make money. They would build and operate those routes which had the appropriate level of demand.

In my opinion it is the federal relationship which stands in the way of real reform. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

I think you will always be the king! I am only 'cutting to the chase.' Lets face it, the money is the real issue.

I am glad to hear we agree on user pays all. The only difference between us now is that I think the money goes further without the federal government taking a piece. But if that is the only way to get the public to buy into investment in the passenger rail system, I guess it isn't all bad.

I couldn't agree more that "an IPO just aint gonna happen." So who is going to be responsible for paying off the bonds you think are needed?

Later on - Ed

[Anonymous]

Don,

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I don't have household help so the whole idea was a bit foreign to me.

Yes, I agree that some states get a good deal from the federal program. In the industry, we call those states 'benificiary states' and some states are called 'donner states.'

Yea, this is one area where the trucks get a major leg up. Trucks benefit most from the interstates out west in the 'big rectangles'. This is another reason I think the federal program needs to be scaled back to a maintanence role. In my opinion the states should take over the lead in new construction. But I digress . . .

If a locality like Highland park wants to buy a program to bring their hired help to the house, I guess that is OK. But I don't want a federal program to take domestics to work. I am still having trouble with the incredible elitest nature of that issue.

Nice talking to you. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Maybe.
But that's a big maybe!
Remember that Amtrak derives some benefit from it's Federal stature, namely the right to run over freight roads with little cost to themselves. And of course the right to be bailed out frequently!

However. I do agree that the Fed relationship does create a drain, in that there is greater beauracracy involved, more red tape, etc...

Theoretically a non-fed Amtrak would no longer have political trains, and could choose it's routes based on needs and demands first.

Likewise, a non-fed Amtrak would be able to (perhaps) get out from under many onerous labor contracts and perhaps subcontract much work.

But even so, to make a profit? no, not impossible. But very far from likely at this stage.

Course, no one has really tried it since, what? Ralph Budd in 1936? And no one has suceeded since him either, tho he did manage to pull if off for a while.

[Anonymous]

Surely the next sentence would clear up the matter: Since most of their household help have chunkers for automobiles, no one in Highland Park wants their household help to drive and park their chunkers in their neighborhoods.

The average Highland Park home lists for over one million dollars. It is not a place where you would see any car of 1977 vintage rusting away....parked in front of any mansion or any mansion's drive way.....

As for government overhead, the increased burden to the states of collecting and counting the federal gasoline tax would be the same as it is for the federal government.

Under your proposal Texas and Hawaii would probably do well, however, some states would not do so well, such as Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota. I am sure this list is longer, but it is painfully obvious that these 4 large states with very small population would be hurt . Truckers traveling on I-94, I-90, and I-80 might have a dirt road to get to the west coast instead of a paved interstate....

[Anonymous]

Yet, in the US Constitution, Article 1, section 8, paragragh 7: To build Post offices and post roads.

So anything which might move the mail could be considered a federal responsibility. Airports, roads, and yes, we do move the mail by rails......

[Anonymous]

Yes, i understand that the consequence of the "Highway Model" means user pays. Fine by me!

But i beleive that the early system would probably have to be bonded, as there is no "nest egg" to start with, and an IPO just aint gonna happen.

Boy, you sure have started another killer thread with this one. What, trying to beat my record with the "Passenger Trains" thread? I think it was the all time record holder for longest thread.

I wish you luck!

[Anonymous]

QM Exactly!!! Either give it the money it needs and not band-aide approaches like has gone on for 32 yrs,or we shoot it and put it out of its misery.Running a nation-wide rail passenger system at a profit is a pipe dream that will never happen.

[Modelcar]

If our people want the trains to run....it should be funded and quit ringing our hands about spending a little money for having the service.
Making a profit is as we all know a pipe dream....Running Amtrak passenger trains is not the end of the world....First revamp the wrongs and I believe we have a Gen. Mgr. now who knows how to do so....and get on with the program. Maybe in the near future High Speed Rail will start to get a foot hold and we can start to morph the system into something to really do the job....

QM

[Anonymous]

What else would you do to make AMT profitable besides make it a privitly run RR?Do away with union contract labor?Make the tickets so expensive that no one could afford to buy one? Just curious.Even the European passenger RR's are subsidized by thier countries,and we're talking about countries the size of most western states.

[Anonymous]

The truth is that I think Amtrak could run a profit if it gave up the relationship with federal government. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Do you honestly believe AMT can run at a profit?Think about the commuter trains,which are run with reduced crews,no amenities,packed to capacity.They are subsidized through taxes because they can't run at a profit.The decison this country has to make is either to give AMT the funds it needs,and not just enough to keep it running year to year,or put it out of its misery.

[Anonymous]

Larry,

I'm with you concerning the federal government throwing away my money. I believe the best way to illustrate the folly is to have the users accept the full cost. Then they would be outraged at Amtrak throwing away their money.

This would in turn inspire Amtrak to real reforms or they would fold. This is as it should be. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Don,

Your question is almost beneath a response. As you are aware, the Federal government is required to provide defense and police. The others are negotiable. If a poll indicated that 55 percent of Americans were in favor of rape, would that be sufficient grounds to remove the legal barriers?

Ed

[Anonymous]

Don,

I try to overlook grammer errors in order to figure out what somebody is proposing in their posts, but in this case, I need clarification. Could you restate this thought?

"While the people of Highland Park do not ride a bus, or light rail, they are usually driving around in their Jaguars, Mercedes, and Rolls, their household help do."

Please understand that my thesis is simply that we can do more on the local level than the federal government can do on the national level. Under my proposal, Hawaii would get to keep all the taxes collected at the pump and they could use it all to build roads in Hawaii. Texas would get to keep all the taxes collected at the pump and they could use it all to build roads in Texas. Both Hawaii and Texas would have more money to build roads (or charge lower taxes) because they would not be paying federal government overhead.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

Yes I know that the current match is 80/20 but I believe it was 90/10 in the beginning and later scaled back to 80/20. Even now the 90/10 ratio is used on some projects. The problem I have is that it is a massive leverage from the Federal Government, but they are only giving us our own money back. If the ratio were changed to 50/50, it wouldn't cost the consumer any more because they would only have to change who gets the tax revenues at the pump. It all comes from gas taxes. The exact ratio of Fed/State appropriations is only a detail which may be negotiated.

The reason I used a tax per mile in my example is because if you tax the fuel per gallon you will either have to charge a super high rate per gallon by comparrison to the highway gas tax, or you will only raise a tiny sum of money and won't be able to build enough R/W to make progress.

I am pretty sure there are required standards for geometric design of railroads already, but I think new standards would be needed for the new Amtrak system since there is such support for the new highspeed corridors.

I would expect that a railroad could build anything they wanted but if they don't adhear to the standards the engineer would be liable for injuries to the public. No engineer is going to accept that liability so they are going to design to the standard.

You do realize that acceptance of the highway model I have outlined would mean the user accepts the full cost of the system? - Ed

[Anonymous]

Why do we spend money on defense, hospitals, schools, police, the forest service, and roads? None of these earn a profit either.

Could they be providing a service. Some 70 percent of the American people in a recent poll support subsidizing Amtrak......

[Anonymous]

Did you read the poll? Some 70 percent of the American people want Amtrak! Under your argument people in Texas should oppose the construction of federally funded highways in Hawaii.

It was the same in Highland Park, the richest inner suburb of Dallas. DART elections passed easily in Highland Park. Why? While the people of Highland Park do not ride a bus, or light rail, they are usually driving around in their Jaguars, Mercedes, and Rolls, their household help do. Since most of their household help have chunkers of automobiles, no one in Highland Park wants their household help to drive and park their chunkers in their neighborhoods. Better, they ridea nice new bus....preferrably burnin liguidified gas than diesel.....